Mark Maynard | 2015 | January

Ann Arbor’s proposed “Ambassador” program, while laughably stupid, is the best thing to happen in Ann Arbor in a long, long time

By Mark | January 25, 2015

I realize that the Ann Arbor DDA’s uniformly mocked “Ambassador” program is likely going to die on the vine, given the overwhelming backlash that we saw last week, but I refuse to just let it go. This is the first spark of life I’ve seen in Ann Arbor in a long, long time, and I’m not willing to just walk away from the glowing embers. This is a conversation that Ann Arbor has been needing to have for well over a decade, and, while I’ve taken some pleasure in mocking the Ann Arbor DDA for suggesting that we collectively hire a platoon of smiling, paid “ambassadors” to travel across the city on Segways, opening doors for the well-to-do, removing show flyers from light poles, and ensuring, among other things, that “street people” don’t interfere with commerce, I think we owe them a debt of gratitude for sparking a real, substantive debate over the future of Ann Arbor. As someone who has been ranting about the increased “mallification” of downtown Ann Arbor for some time, it makes me incredibly happy to see the people of Ann Arbor rising up, pretty much unanimously, agains the DDA, and clearly articulating that they value authenticity, community and sense of place over sterile corporate blandness. I suspect, when we look back in years to come, we’ll see this as a defining moment in the local culture wars… and I am proud of my friends in Ann Arbor for making it happen, and demanding that their voices be heard above those of a few influential business owners.

My advice to you, if you’re reading this in Ann Arbor, is not to let this opportunity pass. Demand a seat at the table. Propose a series of open meetings on the future of Ann Arbor. Make it a point to attend all of the meetings of the DDA. And keep this momentum going, even if the DDA backs down on the Ambassador program… because, you can be sure that, if you don’t, it’ll come back in some other form. Given what I’ve heard, if the DDA does back down, they won’t necessarily be doing so because they feel as though the idea itself is bad, but because it’s been brought to their attention that Block By Block, the Lexington-based vendor that they’ve been working with on this, is pretty much toxic. (Block By Block is a “faith-based” private security firm with a history of union busting, among other things.) In other words, if the DDA backs down, I wouldn’t take it as a sign that they’ve come to see mallification as a bad thing. I believe it’s probably more likely that they just realized that Block By Block is the wrong vendor, given the politics of Ann Arbor.

The image at the top of the page, by they way, was something I posted to Facebook yesterday, and it resulted in one of the more epic social media threads of all time, as dozens of people came out of the woodwork to offer their ideas as to how the Ambassador program could be undermined if the DDA, despite the public outcry, moved forward toward implementation. If I have time later, I’ll try to post some screen captures in the comments section. In the meantime, here’s a little something from 1972 unearthed by our friend Edward Vielmetti.

Yes, apparently there was a time in Ann Arbor’s past when it wasn’t the wealthy business owners pushing for their own private security force, but the young people of Ann Arbor, who wanted to replace the cops with their own “Psychedelic Rangers.” One wonders how the DDA might respond to a counterproposal, suggesting that the $900,000 they were planning to hand over to Block By Block be instead given to John Sinclair to bring back the Rangers.

Posted in Ann Arbor, History, Ideas, Local Business, Locally Owned Business, Uncategorized | Tagged Ann Arbor DDA, authenticity, Block by Block, Edward Vielmetti, John Sinclair, mall cops, mallification, Psychedelic Rangers, sense of place, SMS Holdings | 29 Comments

The second “Saturday Six Pack with Mark Maynard,” this Saturday evening at 6:00, on AM 1700

By Mark | January 23, 2015

As it looks as though the FCC has opted not to intervene, we will be back on the air this Saturday, taking calls from around the world, and quietly narrating the goings-on outside the window of Ypsilanti’s AM 1700. And you, of course, are welcome to tune in and join us.

While I’ve got a few things planned, there’s only one that I’m prepared to talk about right now, and that’s my guest during the 6:00 hour, local historian Matthew Siegfried, who will be taking your questions about the men and women who proceeded us in Ypsilanti, and the traces they left behind. So, if you’d always wanted to know about a particular person, place or artifact from Ypsilanti’s past, here’s your chance. Just call 734.217.8624 between 6:00 and 7:00, and ask away. Nothing is off-limits…

For those of you who might not be familiar with Matt’s work, here are links to two conversations that he and I have had in the past on Ypsilanti’s Native American past and the lives of former slaves in Ypsilanti. I think they should give you a pretty good sense of how knowledgeable he is about this odd, little town that we call home.

If you can’t call in, but would still like to be a part of the show, feel free to print a copy of this week’s poster and wear it around Ypsilanti on a sandwich board.

Oh, and here, again, for those of you living more than a block away from our 100 microwatt antenna, is information on how to tune-in online, etc. You can stream the show directly from the AM1700 website. (Just select your desired format.) Or, you can listen by way of TuneIn.com. If you want, you can even download the TuneIn ap and listen on your phone. As I understand from station management, you can also listen through your television, if you have something called Roku. Or, if you want, you can just stand on Washington Street and press your good ear against one of the station’s windows. So, really, there’s no excuse not to listen.

There’s also been a Facebook event page set up for this episode, which you can invite your friends through. As of right now, 24 people say they’re going to be listening, which is one more than last week. If I’m not mistaken, that should leave us with a few milliwatts to spare, but they’re going fast, so reserve your space today.

If, before committing, you’d like to try out the Saturday Six Pack, episode one is now available online… Enjoy.

And remember to call me between 6:00 and 8:00 on Saturday evening at 734.217.8624. And your call doesn’t have to be about history. I’m willing to talk about almost anything.

Posted in Art and Culture, Special Projects, The Saturday Six Pack, Ypsilanti | Tagged 1700 AM, Matt Siegfried, The Saturday Six Pack | 16 Comments

Ypsi School Board’s Dr. Celeste Hawkins on race, class, segregation, and the prospect of a merger with Ann Arbor Public Schools

By Mark | January 22, 2015

A few days ago, I posted something here about the findings of a study on affordable housing commissioned by Washtenaw County. The published report, as you may recall, didn’t paint a very pretty picture. Our communities, according to the authors of the study, are rapidly becoming segregated, with less-well-off people, especially people of color, quickly consolidating in Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, where the poverty rate is already approaching 30%. And this, in their professional opinion, is not tenable. If not dealt with, the authors point out, it’s not just Ypsilanti that will suffer from the resulting instability. This “imbalance in income, education and opportunity between the jurisdictions, along with the segregation that goes with it,” they say, “will hamper the regional economic growth potential of the (entire) area.” And, with that in mind, they made several suggestions. And it’s one of those suggestions in particular that I’d like for us to talk about today. The authors of this study recommended that we “create a unified Ann Arbor – Ypsilanti School District,” the thought being that more financially stable families would consider living in Ypsilanti if our schools were stronger, better funded, and backed up by Ann Arbor. This one thing, in their opinion, would go a long way toward addressing the growing inequality that we’re seeing develop across the region. Not only would the children of Ypsilnati have access to more in the way of educational resources, but it would also lead to some degree of normalization across our communities with regard to household income, etc.

Given that Ann Arbor residents this past November voted overwhelmingly against the idea of annexing the Whitmore Lake public schools, I don’t see how a merger of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti’s districts would stand a chance, but I do think it’s a worthwhile conversation to have. And, I should add, I know that there are those in County government who would disagree. I have it on good authority that many folks at the County would prefer that such a conversation not be had, as they think, perhaps rightly, that such a conversation would only serve to derail their more achievable objectives, like getting more low-income housing built in Ann Arbor. I haven’t heard this explicitly from anyone in County government, but I also get the sense that our elected officials feel as though suggesting consolidation of our two districts would be career suicide.

And folks who feel that way are probably right. There’s no reason to think that the voters of Ann Arbor, when they just voted against assimilating the small, white, relatively well-performing Whitmore Lake district, wold ever consider joining forces with the more complex, considerably poorer Ypsilanti district. (In the case of Whitmore Lake, there was even State money on the table, and the voters still said no.)

In spite of this, though, I went ahead and reached out to a few folks on the Ypsilanti Community Schools Board of Education, and asked what they thought of the idea. The first person to respond to me was Eastern Michigan University Assistant Professor Celeste Hawkins, who was just recently elected to a new four-year term on the board. Here’s what she had to say. [It should be noted that what follow are her personal opinions, and not those of the board.]

Thank you for the opportunity to offer my perspective. As it relates to your particular question on my thoughts related to the suggestion of merging the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti school systems, I would be remiss if I did not first offer my view on the larger issue as it relates to the interconnectedness of race, class, education, and the pervasive inequalities that disproportionately impact those with lower incomes and people of color. The Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis report demonstrates that patterns of racial and economic segregation both locally and nationally have led to economic and educational opportunities being vastly diminished along the lines of race and class.

As a proud resident of Ypsilanti Township who intentionally chose to live in this community, I have some strong personal views grounded in research about the aforementioned topics. I feel fortunate to live in Ypsilanti and am proud of all that it offers in terms of its rich history, culture, and diversity that is often not widely shared and quite frankly overshadowed by negative characterizations of Ypsilanti. I have not experienced nor do I see firsthand the “livability disadvantages” referenced in the report (p. 28). However, I am not naïve in thinking that perception is often reality for many and is a major issue facing both the city and township of Ypsilanti. The report poignantly suggests that for the entire county to thrive Ann Arbor must prioritize investing in more affordable housing and Ypsilanti must make a concerted effort to grow their demand by “investing in livability” (p. 55). Based on the findings of the report, I agree that there is no sustainability in attempting to defer to Ypsilanti as the remedy for affordable housing, instead Ypsilanti would benefit from proactively seeking to reverse the trajectory of disinvestment. The viability of all communities in Washtenaw County will contribute to its overall sustainability — as the report points out, there is no gain in maintaining high concentrations of poverty and wealth in Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti. Further, it is important to note that I did not draw the conclusion from the Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis report that the solution was to expand the affordable housing stock in Ypsilanti, but rather redistribute the availability of the affordable housing stock by balancing and expanding accessibility in Ann Arbor in order to avoid distressing and placing an undue financial burden on Ypsilanti. As such, the community is uniquely poised to engage in conversations to identify ways to re-invest in Ypsilanti.

In my view, as it relates to equity, an understanding of how society constructs and perpetuates racial and class stereotypes of lower income families must be stated. It is disheartening that the poor are often pathologized (who are mainly people of color) due to lack of “middle class rules,” but fails to take into account the failings of the system, which create conditions that allow poverty to persist. Society often plays the “blame the victim” game and fails to take into account the institutionalized racism and classism that perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Placing the blame on the oppressed instead of looking at the big picture such as inequalities in the school system, economic system, and the power system reproduces and maintains patterns of inequality.

The pathological analysis of poverty that blames the victim for their poverty while failing to acknowledge the structural reasons as a result of the shortcomings of the system is shortsighted at best. Unfortunately, when society focuses on the individual reasons as the most important factors related to poverty, structural reasons such as unemployment and discrimination are typically ignored and viewed as less important. This idea of pathologizing the poor, rather than seriously focusing on the structural causes of poverty itself has been used as justification for policies that have perpetuated poverty leading to minimal urban investment, low household income that cannot support most needy families, and misplaced spending priorities that only encourage and facilitates under-resourced schools and the school to prison pipeline (Kushnick & Jennings, 1999; Rank, 2004).

Views on poverty often gives policy-makers and those with no previous understanding of poverty a very simple way of explaining the behavior of poor people as lazy, shiftless, knowing how to purchase a gun, and knowing their way around a jail, which often makes people rationalize viewing poor people negatively and apathetic about the conditions of poverty. This peripheral and marginalizing view of poverty helps to make people feel comfortable about playing the blame game to justify the stereotypical excuses that allow for the existence of societal issues like poverty.

The problems with institutionalized racism and classism will continue to pervade public education until social changes take place. The schools operate from middle-class norms and values, so views of poverty often shifts the blame away from the school system to the students who “seem” to lack “middle class rules” to succeed in school, thus instead of systematically addressing the issue and critiquing the structural inequalities facing public education, the blame is often shifted to the individual, the family, and the community. This is a social justice issue in need of redress and if left unaddressed from a systemic standpoint will have dire consequences for far too many of our children.

I am optimistic about this proactive approach being taken by Washtenaw County to conduct such a thorough needs assessment and making suggestions on a variety of plausible interventions to perhaps address this disturbing trend.

That being said, your particular question on the suggestion of a merge quite frankly is a strategy we should all be looking at to leverage all available resources to enhance and improve educational opportunities for all students in the county, however these conversations are preliminary at best and if the response to the annexation of Whitmore Lake is any indication of the community’s appetite for expanding school boundaries, then it will take a lot of time and energy to see any movement in that direction. So now that we see that there is the potential for certain segments of the community to become increasingly segregated along the lines of race and class and an overall need to invest in the sustainability of the entire county, it is not merely enough to describe the water when we see the community drowning, we must all do our part by first acknowledging and then seeking to understand the equity issues facing our community more broadly and jump in through efforts of advocacy and raising awareness to save it.

So, should we not talk merger? By doing so, are we jeopardizing other, more achievable goals relative to affordable housing? And, on the other side, if we don’t take the opportunity afforded to us by the publication of this report to have an open, honest discussion, are we doing ourselves a disservice? Personally, I’d be happy to never mention the idea of a merger again, just so long as there was evidence of real, meaningful collaboration between the districts, and an acceptance of the fact that, if we’re to be successful as a region, we need to think beyond our borders and acknowledge the interconnectedness of our communities… But how does one get there from where we are today? How do we use our schools to reverse the harmful segregation that we’re seeing increase around us?

Posted in Ann Arbor, Education, Uncategorized, Ypsilanti | Tagged affordable housing, Celeste Hawkins, equity, poverty, public education, race and poverty, racism, regional cooperation, school consolidation, segregation, social justice, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County's Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Whitmore Lake, Ypsilanti Community Schools, Ypsilanti School Board | 18 Comments

The fight intensifies over Ann Arbor’s proposed “ambassador” program

By Mark | January 21, 2015

“Does Ann Arbor’s downtown belong to the people of Ann Arbor, or to the City’s most influential and vocal business owners?”

It’s a question that’s been asked quite a bit this past week, in the wake of news surfacing about an Ann Arbor DDA plan to further the “mallification” of downtown by hiring a small army of paid “ambassadors” who would travel throughout the City opening doors for the well-to-do, removing flyers from light poles, and ensuring, among other things, that “street people” don’t interfere with commerce. (“Street people” was the term used by DDA member Joan Lowenstein, who yesterday left a comment on this site explaining that most of the people downtown merchants find problematic are not in fact “homeless,” as had been inferred in our earlier discussion.) The idea has been roundly criticized by the citizens of Ann Arbor, who, it would seem, despite our gentle, good-natured mocking, still value authenticity and sense of place. In spite of this growing public pushback, however, it appears that plans are continuing to move forward.

During a meeting of the DDA’s Operations Committee this morning, approximately 20 members of the Ann Arbor community showed up to make their thoughts known on this increasingly divisive initiative. Perhaps not surprisingly, I’m told by those in attendance that, of those who spoke out about the ambassador program, only one was in favor of the program, which is projected to cost $900,000 over the next three years. (For what it’s worth, I’m also told this one person who saw merit in the idea used the remainder of his allotted time to rant about 9/11 and various other unrelated things.) The bottom line, it would seem, is that regular, everyday Annarbourites don’t much like the idea of outsourcing the “user experience” of their downtown to Block By Block, a “faith-based” private security company in Lexington, as is currently the plan. Following, with more of the argument against this proposed arrangement, is the statement made this morning by former Jefferson Market owner Jean Henry, who was the fist to address the crowd. (Jean was cut off about half-way through, so not all of the following was heard.)

My name is Jean Henry, Ann Arbor resident since 1984, past owner of Jefferson Market and Sustainability Agent at Zingerman’s, currently doing some consulting and working on opening a retail shop focused on high-quality, well-designed goods produced between Detroit and Grand Rapids, plus collaborative efforts between local artists and social mission producers worldwide.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of a town I love. I am committed to Ann Arbor. I have always supported the DDA’s work. I remember the failing parking structures. I know that the DDA has done good work to improve our downtown vitality and economic viability. When I first heard of the proposed ambassador program, like many, via the M-Live article a week ago, my immediate thought was that the DDA has just jumped the shark. It just seemed embarrassing. A marketing fail. What kind of town needs to pay people to be friendly for their citizens.

As I discovered more program areas — everything from sanitation, to way-finding, to social work, to graffiti (removal), to bike and pedestrian accessibility, to public safety — I became more alarmed. No one agency can perform all these functions successfully, nor should they try. It seems the program is designed to convey a positive impression to outsiders who fear problems that are not really problems in our downtown — especially crime.

As I’ve talked to business owners downtown, I found they also think it’s a bad idea. They tend their own shops and can clean their own stoops, welcome guests, give directions, and manage pan handlers directly, and in their own unique style. They don’t need to pay outsiders to do the work of engaging their community. This initiative outsources what any well-run (and smart) business would do on their own. It’s a marketing effort that in its very existence denies the strongest characteristics of our community — progressive, open, creative, engaging and a little weird. We are taking it personally, because it is personal to us. Because we love this town.

Mark Hodesh specifically asked me to read this to you: “I fully support the DDA. They have helped us out whenever we needed them. But this is a terrible idea. It’s not the expense. It risks making our town look like a circus. I think we’re better than this. I’m heading off to the FLA Panhandle right now as a tourist, specifically to avoid anything resembling this program in that state.”

Lots of people have complained I know. I am here first and foremost to ask the DDA to table this initiative in order to gather more public input and assess alternatives. That seems only reasonable. My other pitch is for the DDA to expand its understanding of it’s constituency to all of us who fund the DDA, use downtown and help make this town what it is.

I have been asked to pose alternatives to address the same problems. This is almost impossible when it is unclear what critical problems you are trying to address with the ambassador program. Where there are demonstrated needs, I’m sure we could workshop better solutions within the community. It’s easier to suggest ways to support the DDA mission to encourage smart development and investment in downtown. I’d love to see a fund for low-cost/high impact grants to enhance our local mojo. I’d like to see some rent support for low investment/high impact/low profit margin businesses. There are great models for pedestrian and bike safety infrastructure (rather than enforcement). I think public restrooms make a lot of sense too. You could combine them with kiosks that our beautiful local people will plaster with posters.

Let’s talk about the posters and flyers that mark our downtown. Not because they are a critical issue, but because many, many people have expressed particular worry that they would disappear entirely. and they are an example of something we value that is unlikely to register in this room, or with Block by Block. These posters are not a nuisance; they are a sign that we still generate culture and community organically. They are way-finders to authentic Ann Arbor. When I arrived here at 18, I made great use of them, and the local culture I discovered is a big reason why I’m still here 30 years later. Let our downtown be a little messy and beautiful and heart-felt and sometimes angry. Let it be free to be itself. Maybe it will put some visitors outside their comfort zone, but that is what traveling is all about — exposure to new things. Let our downtown look like us and we will tend to it diligently out of love. You can’t import that. You can’t buy that. You CAN cultivate it.

I like seeing all kinds of people in A2. I want more buskers, more strangeness, more skaters and kids, more people just hanging out. I think that’s good for business too. How many people have you heard say they come to A2 to see the weirdos? Loitering is not a problem; it’s a sign of a commons — a gathering place. People of all kinds hanging out downtown together is a sign of community integrity. Our downtown does not exist solely for retail and office use — and that’s good for business… and property values. Our crime rate is very low, despite the homeless population, the graffiti, and the partying here. We should let visitors know that we are proud of our very safe, and progressive, and open, and ‘weird’ town.

I understand that this body has been under pressure to do something about essentially nothing. I would suggest that this is the point when the DDA needs to broaden its understanding of its mission to encompass a bigger swath of it’s constituency. You have really hit a nerve with this one. It looks like you are more interested (in many ways) in making a town comfortable for outsiders than for our own citizens — workers, crazies, weirdos, artists, buskers — who don’t have a wallet full o’ cash. I don’t believe that, but I do think you undervalue many of the people and things that create local character and community integrity. I’m here to ask you to change that right now.

As I said, I have supported most of your work. It seems that this initiative is simply classic evidence of a tunnel think — a conversation took place in a vacuum that should have taken place within the whole community. Because I think we can all help you meet your mission. But the DDA needs to reach out meaningfully to its workforce, its creative class, its small & mighty (if woefully underfunded) local businesses, its kids and its panhandlers, because we ARE Ann Arbor. We offer what people come to see. We grow this town in smart and fun ways. And we are your best investment.

[File photo of Jean Henry courtesy our friends at the very much missed Ann Arbor Chronicle.]

As I understand it, in spite of the fact that Jean and approximately 18 others spoke out against this initiative, the members of the DDA Operations Committee, when the time came to cut off public comment, segued right back into a discussion of this program as though nothing had happened. There was some good news, however. It was apparently noted during the meeting that, even though the funding for this program has already been approved, there is not yet any contract in place with Block By Block… which means that this could still be stopped.

The question is, will the DDA listen to the people of Ann Arbor and stop this before it goes too far… before they complete the transformation of downtown Ann Arbor into a completely sterile open-air shopping mall for the wealthy?

“They assured us that they are considering our input,” said Jean in a message to myself and others after the meeting, “although I saw zero real evidence of that in the room today.”

Personally, I can’t imagine that this will go forward. There’s just too much momentum going the other way, and it doesn’t sound to me as though they’re even able to articulate what exactly the problem is that they’re hoping to solve, or what metrics they’ll be tracking to see whether or not the ambassador program is successful in dealing with said problem. I mean, I know that there are probably some very powerful business owners that want for the DDA to operate their own private security force in order to make Ann Arbor more welcoming to the well-off, but I can’t imagine that they can make this happen given the current level of scrutiny. Hell, I just read online that Ann Arbor City Councilman Stephen Kunselman has offered to bring a resolution to Council, asking the DDA to step back and reconsider. This isn’t, in other words, going to go away. It’s just going to intensify. And that, in my opinion, is an awesome thing. This is exactly the kind of broad, community-wide discussion the people of Ann Arbor should be having.

People need to decide, collectively, whether authenticity and sense of place actually have value? This shouldn’t just be the decision of a few people on the DDA, and those business owners who have their ear.

And, secondarily, if it is decided that there truly are problems that need to be addressed in downtown, people need to come together to figure out how to address them. I suppose I could be wrong, but my sense is that there may be more cost-effective local solutions to issues like panhandling that don’t require us to hire Walmart-like greeters and get into bed with a company like Block By Block that doesn’t know this community and what makes it unique.

For what it’s worth, here’s one last thing that I found interesting… It apparently came out during today’s meeting that the work of Block By Block first came to the attention of the DDA when several members of the group attended the International Downtown Association’s 2013 World Congress in New York, an event which was hosted in part by Block By Block. According to Mary Morgan, the former editor of the Ann Arbor Chronicle, this conference “was attended by several DDA board members, staff and others – including (recently-elected Ann Arbor Mayor) Christopher Taylor, who was one of the people reimbursed by the DDA for trip expenses.” I don’t think anyone is suggesting that anything untoward happened on this trip, but my sense is that a lot of folks, like me, find it troubling that we didn’t find Block By Block as a result of searching for a solution to a specific problem, but when they presented to members of our DDA, showing them how, by implementing an “ambassador” program, they could essentially turn their entire downtown area into a perfectly controlled mall-like environment, optimized for commerce. But you have to hand it to Block By Block. They’ve found an awesome niche, pitching their services to Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) flush with tax-payer cash, and looking for ways to spend it.

If you agree that this should be tabled, please take a moment and let the DDA know how you feel. They can be reached either through their website, by way of e-mail (dda@a2dda.org), or via Twitter (@A2DDA).

Posted in Ann Arbor, Local Business, Marketing, Uncategorized | Tagged Ann Arbor Ambassador Program, Ann Arbor Chronicle, Ann Arbor DDA, authenticity, Block by Block, community building, DDA, flyers, homelessness, Jean Henry, Joan Lowenstein, mallification, Mark Hodesh, our fragile downtown business ecosystem, posters, Stephen Kunselman, street people | 73 Comments

The Saturday Six Pack with Mark Maynard: episode one

By Mark | January 19, 2015

Saturday was my first night hosting The Saturday Six Pack with Mark Maynard on Ypsilanti’s historic AM 1700, and I think it went pretty well. You’ll find my rough notes below. If you feel like actually listening for yourself, though, you can do so here.

We’re still working out a few bugs with regard to how calls are handled and such, but I think it went as well as could be expected our first time out. All six beers were distributed and consumed, and, judging from the photographic evidence, those in the room were having a good time. [images courtesy Kate de Fuccio]

About 20 people called in. There were no international calls, but we did talk with with people from as far away as Florida, which was nice. (Apparently the AM 1700 signal carries quite some distance.) For the most part, people were pretty awesome… even when they called in to accuse me of having delusions of grandeur.

[I’m not used to smiling. My face just doesn’t know how to handle it.]

I stared the evening off by talking with Bee Roll, the owner of Beezy’s Cafe. We talked about food safety, the false sincerity of banks that claim in their advertising materials to support local businesses, and the storefront next to hers, which was recently condemned. And then I surprised her with the MarkMaynard.com Ypsilantian of the Year award, which made her cry… She would cry repeatedly over the course of the evening, giving me the idea for a regular segment called “Make Bee Cry,” in which people would call and say nice things about Bee until she started weeping. (The person to bring on tears the fastest, would win some kind of prize.)

Rob Hess, the man behind Ypsi’s Go Ice Cream, also dropped by. He’d come to say nice things about Bee, and to give her some congratulatory ice cream, but he stuck around to tell us about his recent experiences at Ice Cream Camp, where he learned, among other things, that lots of folks in the business are more interested in finding new ways to introduce air into their product, saving them money, than just making awesome food that people want to eat… Here’s Rob congratulating Bee on her hugely important, life-changing award.

And, about half way through the show, Brigid Mooney dropped by to make the case for a reoccurring “Shy Commedians” segment on the program. There are a lot of funny people with good material, she told us, who, although they’re too intimidated to take the stage at a comedy club, would love to have a local radio venue. So we put the idea to a vote, and a half dozen or so people called in to support her. So, from now on, there will be a comedian or two on The Saturday Six Pack. Almost all the people who called in, as far as I could tell, were either friends or relatives of hers that she’d instructed to voice support for the idea, but I think that’s alright. It shows resourcefulness, and I like that.

In addition to all of this, my mom called in twice. The first time, for some inexplicable reason, she asked Bee to shave off my beard and run across the street with it to Beezy’s. (I think she was afraid that, if Bee didn’t run away with it, I might try to reattach it.) The second time, she wanted to complain about the fact that I don’t call as often as I should. (I referred to our weekly calls as both satisfying and efficient. She disagreed.)

My mom wasn’t the only person to call with complaints. One of my bandmates called from Minneapolis to scold me for holding up our perpetually soon-to-be-released record, which is now a few years behind schedule. Another member of the Monkey Power Trio called to ask me to describe our show’s opening theme. (That’s right, instead of tuning in to listen to the opening theme, he called in from Portland and asked me to describe it to him while on the air.) After hearing my description, he said that he’d create a better opening theme for the show, one that better reflected my “megalomania” and “insecurity.” (If I had to pick just one, I’d say that this was my personal highlight of the evening. It was even better than making Bee cry. You can listen for yourself at the 36-minute mark, if you like.)

A woman called in from the big city of Ann Arbor, which I’m told is a lot like Manhattan, in hopes that we might sing her Happy Birthday. And, later, her ten year old son could called to say, “I have no regrets.” About what, it was wasn’t clear.

I repeatedly asked Linette to call in, but apparently she wasn’t listening at home, as she told me that she would be. At some point, after asking a few times, a mutual friend of ours in Chicago, Patty Stevenson, called in. She said that she loved me, which was nice. Apparently she’d felt sorry for me. My sense is that, as time goes on, there will be more calls like this… calls from people convinced that they must be the only people in the world listening, feeling bad for me as I endlessly repeat the station’s phone number to no avail.

While Linette didn’t call, her cousin Andy did. He was listening downriver. We talked a little about his new band. I think I made him sad. Every time he mentioned a new name that he was considering for the band, I had to tell him that it was already taken. After a few rounds of this, we said goodbye. (I made a note to myself that I’d like to help people come up with band names in the future. I think that would be good community service to offer.)

It got slow at some point. It kind of ebbed and flowed. There were a few minutes, toward the end, where I was just looking out the window, talking about the cars going by, and the police sirens I could hear in the distance. Otherwise, though, it was pretty action-packed.

Among other things, we talked about Health Department restaurant inspections, homelellness, and the death of children during war. In spite of that, though, I think that it was pretty upbeat and fun. But maybe we have the six pack to thank for that.

The show ended with me and Kate de Fuccio, the AM 1700 staff photographer, talking about the evacuation of children from London during World War II, which led to a discussion of other childhood evacuations. (I shared the fact that Arlo had pooped in such a way that there were two pieces, lying next to one another, in the bottom of his potty. One bigger. One smaller. Side by side. He said it looked like him and his mother snuggling.)

Sorry to everyone who was cut off, like Teacher Patti, or couldn’t get through, or couldn’t hear me once they did get through. It’ll take a little while for us to work out all of the bugs, but I’m sure it’ll happen.

Lastly, I’d like to thank AM 1700 owner Brian Robb for opening the station to me and allowing the weirdness to flow through it… If you get a chance, like AM 1700 on Facebook. I know that would make him happy.